We are going to compare this with another database that we have (for all reactors not just BWRs).

By the way, not all Mark 1 reactors at Fukushima are BWR-3. Only unit 1 was a BWR-3. The other units are BWR-4. It may not be useful at this stage to separate the Mark 1 reactors in the 3, 4, 5 categories.

I would like to read the current version of the Q&As after a meeting this morning with NSIR.
Thanks,
Jose.

Herman told me that of all the BWR Mark I reactors only 6 are like the ones in Fukushima, the BWR-3 version.

Attached is the table with two tabs: one with the 5 US BWR-3 Mark I and the other with all of them. Millstone 1 is closed. Even the BWR-3 may differ from those in Japan (for example, security upgrades).

Ann, .,
Hernando prepared this table of BWR Mark I reactors in the US. It includes various information including dates of OLs and CPs as well OBE and SSE information as well as design pressure and accident pressure capacity.

Annie,
Attached is some information on the design for some of the affected Japanese plants.

Slide 2 says that for Fukushima 1 (unit 1) the PGA was 0.17 g. The National Bureau of Standards damage report for the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki earthquake, NBS SP 592, says that the design basis for that reactor was 0.18 g (and it used the Taft record from the 1952 Kern County earthquake response spectra – design was by Blume’s company – an author of the NBS report is Peter lanev who worked for John Blume at the time of the NBS report).

Slide 10 has values for the seismic design basis loads for other plants (Onagawa, Fukushima 1 and 2 included). It went up since the 1965 design for unit 1. I do not know if unit 1 was upgraded (meaning the mechanical and electrical equipment because the buildings tend to be strong enough).

Slide 30. The first sentence on slide 30 is interesting. It says that the greatest impact of seismic requirements is on mechanical and electrical equipment. I tend to agree with that.

We will try to corroborate the information above-with other sources. A comparison of these with PGA’s from SHAKECAST may show that the 0.48 g covers the recorded PGA at some sites and not be far from those at other sites,

We are getting a list of US BWR Mark I reactors with their locations and some design parameters (design pressure, OBE and SSE).

Pat,
I currently have about 17 pages of questions that we should have pulled together in a pretty useful form later today.

Attached, please see a list of unanswered engineering type questions that I pulled from the larger Q&A document. If you can get your guys working on these it would be very helpful. I am hoping to publish a version at about 4 or 5 today. So, if I can get something on these by perhaps 3 or 4, that would be great. Otherwise, we will note that we are working on it.

FYI, Jon Ake and Cliff Munson are working on a separate set of the seismic questions.

Also, I don’t have any questions on Seismic PRA, which is a hot topic with industry lately (as evidenced by the recent letter from NEI asserting that SPRA is too undeveloped). I have asked Nilesh to develop some Q&As that we may see coming from industry to us as a result of all of this. Those are not likely to make it into the version I want to get out today, but we can add later.

NRR/DE has Kamal (seismic structures) to review specific questions. I also have several very experienced structural design engineers on staff (George Thomas & Farhead Farzam) If electrical, I have qualified staff and George Wilson that can help.

<b>Our FOIA archives feature collected and sorted FOIA documents, and are sub-categorized by event, topic, importance, and type.
Email chains are extracted and published according to date.
Press releases are archived by date of publication.
Presentation materials and pdfs are summarized and displayed in whole.
Each post is titled with the date of transmission of that particular FOIA combined with the subject of the message.